News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever

There are now 449 commercially operating nuclear power reactors globally, generating 10% of global electricity supply, with the most recently commissioned being an APR-1400 in South Korea, which went live last week. What seems to have snuck in below the radar is that the first of the Chinese EPRs (same design as Hinkley C/ Flammaville etc) - Taishan 1 - is according to this running commercially since last December?

Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array: 2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

I consider myself to be realistic and can see the arguments for such as nuclear providing base load.

I am not opposed to nuclear but what I am opposed to is what can only be called lies. The lies commence from the outset of every nuclear power station project. They are never delivered on time or on budget and the costs of de-commissioning seem to get lost (or seriously and probably deliberately underestimated) in the original projections.

We don't read endless articles about wind farms or solar parks being seriously over budget or late being delivered.

I can also live with a wind turbine going on fire, similarly a solar park but such as Windscale, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima tend to have a somewhat more significant impact on the environment when things go wrong.

These are incontrovertible facts and the nuclear industry cannot get away from them. It is somewhat akin to those articles that suggest if you took all the money put into nuclear and oil and invested it research/ development we might have solved the energy crisis some time ago.

Hi Richard,I used to work in the industry so am a "little" biassed. Having worked inside it, I understand why it has self harmed. Unfortunately you can't take the politics out of it and that is in a nutshell what did the damage. Too much political interference, leading to the wrong decisions being made has indirectly caused to industry to jump in all directions and get nowhere fast, especially in the UK. Rowland Pococks Book, Nuclear power in the UK explains it in great detail.

You are right about the disasters. Each one was unnecessary.Windscale fire, Rush to beat the test ban treaty. and using air cooling on graphite core needing wigner energy release. (lack of early knowledge)TMI new station, inexperienced operations team and sloppy culture.Chernobyl. Undertaking run down tests with reactor not shutdown. Loss of cooling feed water supply due to reducing mains supply frequency and badly conceived reactor tripping mechanism coupled with interlock defeats applied to protection system and reactor with undesirable reactivity characteristics).Fukushima. Arrogance of TEPCO senior company management overrulling Recomendations from OEM and other utilities operating identical reactor plant, not installing Hydrogen vents to reactor pressure loop and not situating backup diesel generators at high level away from tsunami risk.This one was the least excusable of them all imo, because it was the easiest fix. Philip R

Every disaster was essily avoidable. some n

After privatatisation, we could generate electricity cheaper than coal but not as cheap as gas. That was then. Gas has become relatively expensive, so the legacy AGR fleet generates cheap units and good profits for its owner. HMG chose to flog off all the assets in the UK so the public now pays a high price for foreign funded nuclear power, trains public transport utilities etc. It was a way of dealing with militant union bosses. who ruled nationalised corperations and in part contributed to the demise of manufacturing industries in the UK.

Renewable energy items benefit from mass factory production, not bespoke items and erectected on site in small numbers whic by and large is nuclears problem.

Nuclear fission still has a future but not in the form it is currently being built. They have to be small and provide heat for connurbations.

Nuclear power generation is beset with enormous problems, some created by human greed eg extracting as much money in subsidies as possible, and others by the need for a long term way of dealing with the radioactive waste. In the UK we have had half a century at least to plan for radioactive waste and we still do not have a strategy!

Plans have been mooted for reactors which use and neutralize the most radioactive waste and, separately, for less dangerous reactors using thorium. When will they ever see the light of day?

Nuclear waste disposal is a little like Brexit, no-one can agree on what to do even though there are several options. I can't see the problem being solved until the politicians can get a proper grip on things which seems very unlikely at the moment.

Gus would like to ask (channeling him here) Bearing in mind the cost of sarcophagus 2 in Ukraine (Chernobyl) Construction of the arch, Its cost has been estimated at 1.5 billion euros, with the total cost of the New Safe Confinement Project exceeding 3 billion euros.

How much wind & hydro investment could have been achieved over the same time frame of contract & construction to european wide renewables projects not forgetting the new sarcophagus is deemed good for 100 years so will be a re-do in the next few generations in all likelihood, as well as monitoring costs rising this will involve more cap in hand from ukraine, whoever is controlling the country in the future(based on the loss of 2 GW of late).

We understand the money is a combination of G& nations, world banking, stifling taxes on ukraine populace, & general donor countries wider & further than the EU. how does that sum compare?

Also, if anyone is interested in a trip to the Ukraine, Chernobyl & Pripyat (and a visit to the famous chernobyl cafe) you can do this utilising Ryan Air for around £144 for a 2+ day trip via Stansted airport based on September 2019 prices. the modern term being dark tourism for this sort of thing.

Gus would like to ask (channeling him here) Bearing in mind the cost of sarcophagus 2 in Ukraine (Chernobyl) Construction of the arch, Its cost has been estimated at 1.5 billion euros, with the total cost of the New Safe Confinement Project exceeding 3 billion euros.

How much wind & hydro investment could have been achieved over the same time frame of contract & construction to european wide renewables projects not forgetting the new sarcophagus is deemed good for 100 years so will be a re-do in the next few generations in all likelihood, as well as monitoring costs rising this will involve more cap in hand from ukraine, whoever is controlling the country in the future(based on the loss of 2 GW of late).

We understand the money is a combination of G& nations, world banking, stifling taxes on ukraine populace, & general donor countries wider & further than the EU. how does that sum compare?

Also, if anyone is interested in a trip to the Ukraine, Chernobyl & Pripyat (and a visit to the famous chernobyl cafe) you can do this utilising Ryan Air for around £144 for a 2+ day trip via Stansted airport based on September 2019 prices. the modern term being dark tourism for this sort of thing.

A very loose generalisation, might be 1GW per £1bn. Though Spain has just announced a PV farm at half that cost €300m for 590MW.

And it's not just the cost of the latest part of the cleanup, but all costs. For instance the Fukushima cost estimates have already doubled, and are now at around $200bn, so perhaps 200GW (to 400GW) of RE generation capacity.

PS GUS, do you still want the inverter I put safe for you a year or so back?